Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Why Didn't God Prosecute Cain For Murder?

  1. #1
    WebersHome Guest

    Post Why Was Cain Rejected?

    -
    . Gen 4:2b . . Abel became a keeper of sheep, and Cain became a tiller of the soil.

    Both men worked at honorable professions and their skills were essential to the Adams' survival. Man at this time was a vegetarian so Cain farmed and raised the family's food; while Abel kept them clothed and shod by tending flocks for leather; and possibly fleece too.

    . Gen 4:3-4a . . In the course of time, Cain brought an offering to The Lord from the fruit of the soil; and Abel, for his part, brought the choicest of the firstlings of his flock.

    There's no indication in this scene suggesting their oblations were sacrifices for sin. The Hebrew word for their offerings is from minchah (min-khaw') and means: to apportion, i.e. bestow; a donation; euphemistically, tribute; specifically a sacrificial offering (usually bloodless and voluntary).

    Ancient rabbis understood the brothers' offerings to be a "first fruits" kind of oblation.

    T. And it was at the end of days, on the fourteenth of Nisan, that Kain brought of the produce of the earth, the seed of cotton (or line), an oblation of first things before the Lord; and Habel brought of the firstlings of the flock. (Targum Jonathan)

    Seeing as how Cain was a farmer, then in his case, an amount of produce was the appropriate first fruits offering, and seeing as how Abel was an animal husbandman, then in his case a head of livestock was the appropriate first fruits offering.

    I think it's safe to assume the brothers weren't underage, but rather, responsible men in this particular scene because God is going to treat them that way. This incident is not said to be the very first time they brought gifts to God. The brothers (and very likely their parents too), probably had been bringing gifts for many years; ever since they were of age. And up to this point, apparently both men were doing everything right and God was just as much pleased with Cain and his gifts as He was with Abel and his gifts.

    But where did they get this religion of theirs? Well; wasn't Abel a prophet?

    "Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary." (Luke 11:50-51a)

    It's evident then that the offerings were a legitimate part of a God-given religion rather than a pagan ritual. (cf. Heb 11:4)

    . Gen 4:4b-5a . .The Lord paid heed to Abel and his offering, but to Cain and his offering He paid no heed.

    It's common for poorly-trained Bible students to trip up on the nature of the offerings and totally miss the role that the nature of the men themselves played in their worship; in other words: they assume Cain was rejected because his offering was bloodless and they attempt to justify their theory by citing the below:

    "It was by faith that Abel brought a more acceptable offering to God than Cain did. God accepted Abel's offering to show that he was a righteous man." (Heb 11:4)

    However, the focus in both Genesis and Hebrews is not really upon the offerings because it's okay for a minchah to be bloodless. The focus is actually upon faith and righteousness; viz: the focus is upon the nature of the brother's conduct rather than upon the nature of their gifts. Abel's conduct was righteous; hence God felt honored by his gift; while Cain's conduct was unrighteous; hence God felt insulted by his gift.

    Cain was of a good family. He wasn't the product of poverty or an inner city barrio or dilapidated public housing. His mother wasn't cruel and/or thoughtless, nor did she neglect or abandon him. He wasn't in a gang, didn't carry a church key, a shank, an ice pick, or a gun; didn't smoke weed, drink, snort coke, take meth, gamble or chase women. He was very religious and worshipped the exact same God that his brother worshipped, and the rituals he practiced were correct and timely.

    Cain worked for a living in an honest profession. He wasn't a thief, wasn't a predatory lender, wasn't a Wall Street barracuda, a dishonest investment banker, or an unscrupulous social network mogul. He wasn't a cheap politician, wasn't a terrorist, wasn't on the take, wasn't lazy, nor did he associate with the wrong crowd. The man did everything a model citizen is supposed to do; yet he, and subsequently his gift, were soundly rejected because he was unrighteous.

    In what way was he unrighteous? Well, Cain's blemish is an elephant in the middle of the room. It was friction between him and his brother. It is unacceptable to worship God while the worshipper's relationship with their brother is dysfunctional.

    "Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift." (Matt 5:23-24)

    . Gen 4:5b-7a . . Cain was much distressed and his face fell. And the Lord said to Cain: Why are you distressed, and why is your face fallen? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted?

    Cain knew the drill; viz: do what's right first, and worship second. That can be readily seen played out in the first chapter of Isaiah where Yhvh's people are depicted practicing their God-given worship to perfection. They were attending Temple on a timely basis, praying up a storm, offering all the correct sacrifices and offerings, observing the Sabbath, and all the feasts days. But God soundly rejected all of that because their conduct was unbecoming.

    I honestly believe that some families shouldn't attend church; not when the home is dysfunctional. It would be better for all involved, including God, if they would stay home and play video games and/or maybe go to a movie or a sports bar instead.

  2. #2
    WebersHome Guest

    Post Why Didn't God Prosecute Cain For Murder?

    -
    According to the covenant that God instituted with Noah after the Flood; murder is a mandatory death offense. (Gen 9:5)

    The death penalty for murder was included in the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God at Sinai as per Ex 21:12-14, Lev 24:17, Lev 24:21, and Num 35:31-34.

    Q: So then, seeing as how capital punishment for murder is mandatory; then how was God able to let Cain walk without compromising His own integrity? Does God practice a double standard?

    A: Murder is morally wrong, yes; and it is intrinsically a sin, yes; however; prior to the Flood, murder wasn't a transgression because God had not yet enacted any laws to that effect.

    . Rom 4:14 . .The Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, neither is there violation.

    . Rom 5:13 . . Until the Law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

    Case in point: Abraham married a half-sister. Sarah was his father's daughter, but not his mother's (Gen 20:12). According to the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God at Sinai, it is a breach of the covenant to sleep with someone that close.

    "The nakedness of your sister-- your father's daughter or your mother's, whether born into the household or outside --do not uncover their nakedness." (Lev 18:9)

    But Abraham was exempt from that law because God didn't introduce it till several centuries after Abraham.

    . Gal 3:17 . .What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.

    In other words: the Law as per the covenant that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God as per as per Deut 29:9-15 isn't retroactive.

    Modern Judaism insists that Deut 29:14-15 retroactively binds Abraham to the covenant. Well; not only is that kind thinking a stretch of the imagination; but it's not even sensible because any and all breaches of the covenant incur curses.

    "Cursed is the one who lies with his sister, the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother." (Deut 27:22)

    "Cursed is he who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them." (Deut 27:26)

    If God were to level curses at Abraham for breaching the covenant; then God would be quite obligated to level curses at Himself.

    "I will curse him who curses you" (Gen 12:3)

    The Jews' occupation of the land of Israel has always been conditional upon their compliance with the covenant; but their ownership of the land has always been conditional upon the promises that God made to Abraham prior to the covenant's institution. That way there is no possible chance of Abraham's posterity ever losing the deed to that land no matter how many times they breach the covenant. They might get evicted from their homeland from time to time; but it will always remain theirs due to Abraham's immunity to the covenant's curses.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Church of
    Sherwood Park
    Posts
    3,415
    Blog Entries
    28
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    Abba Jose ben Hanan said that God made a horn grow out of Cain.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Murder of Fidelis of Sigmaringen by Calvinists
    By Scriptur in forum Totally Depraved
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-02-2012, 07:36 PM
  2. Why Didn't Jeremiah Quit?
    By InTruth in forum 66 Books-God's Word
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-18-2009, 11:33 PM
  3. Jesus Didn't Really Die For You?
    By Churchwork in forum Totally Depraved
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-22-2008, 03:19 AM
  4. God Didn't Happen All By Himself
    By Jamal in forum Atheist/Agnostic
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-18-2007, 11:42 AM
  5. Murder
    By Churchwork in forum Politics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-24-2006, 10:26 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •